On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:54:52 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>Tegger wrote:
>> jim beam > wrote in
>> t:
>>
>>> On 12/27/2009 01:29 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>>> In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
>>>> one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
>>>> the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
>>>> continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
>>>> but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
>>>> experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
>>> that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
>>> spelled it "coral", not corral.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
>> health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
>> (stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.

>As I just explained in a just posted reply, the "corral" instead of
>coral is probably due to my habit of stuffing myself at the Golden
>Corral on a weekly basis. Irony would have it that an individual who
>criticizes spelling while himself cannot find a "shift" key is... well,
>ironic..



>> And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
>> inexcusably argumentative.
>>
>> I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
>> cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
>> essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
>> feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
>> demand".
>> And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
>> pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.
>>
>> I did some digging for you. Here,
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
>> Grumpy just might be correct.

>I should be. I was there in person.


>> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
>> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
>> do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.

>Prior to the recent revelations of numbers cooking, they almost had the
>masses convinced. Thankfully, it's all unraveling hopefully just like
>the ol' Watergate event.

Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.